The Next Decade Could Be Even Worse

[tylenol]

You misunderstand what "Counter-Elite" means; Counter-elite doesn't mean "Not-Elite" anymore than an Anti-Pope in Medieval era meant "Not the Pope", it was a rival claimant to the Papacy. Turchin's conception of "Counter Elite" is akin to this idea; he, shut out of power found a way to get into it briefly.

You are fixated on this sentence that you can't even be bothered to represent correctly.

- - - Updated - - -



Neither did Trump, no president was going to totally stop a virus from spreading. I will say Biden voted for the Iraq War and that DID actually tangible kill people in a far more direct way than before.

As for the rest, a lot of Could, Would, Maybe so's. Given the scope of the disaster, the fact that its not a fucking landslide house sweep is fucking stunning.

You'd have a point on trump not killing over 200,000 if he took the virus even remotely serious from the start, he has never taken it seriously even when he got it and had near $1,000,000 worth of medical care he still doesn't take it seriously...literally bashing records here with like 160,000+ cases every god damn day...Edit, sorry, 180,000 per day, my bad.

Taking it seriously from the start probably would've helped, he could've kept the national stockpile updated...you know the one Bush started and Obama continued then trump...did nothing with it except let everything rot, getting rid of the pandemic taskforce didn't help, not fucking listening to one of the worlds top infectious decease experts didn't help, holding klan rallies during a pandemic didn't help, bitching about wearing a mask didn't help, thinking $1200 was enough for anyone to survive on didn't help, delaying additional help didn't help (fuck McConnell as well, that ghoul)...straight ignoring it also didn't help...he is the reason almost (or more) 250,000 people are dead.

He can take credit for the stock market and other shit he literally had nothing to do with so he can take credit for this.

[Theodarzna]

You'd have a point on trump not killing over 200,000 if he took the virus even remotely serious from the start, he has never taken it seriously even when he got it and had near $1,000,000 worth of medical care he still doesn't take it seriously...literally bashing records here with like 160,000+ cases every god damn day...Edit, sorry, 180,000 per day, my bad.

Taking it seriously from the start probably would've helped, he could've kept the national stockpile updated...you know the one Bush started and Obama continued then trump...did nothing with it except let everything rot, getting rid of the pandemic taskforce didn't help, not fucking listening to one of the worlds top infectious decease experts didn't help, holding klan rallies during a pandemic didn't help, bitching about wearing a mask didn't help, thinking $1200 was enough for anyone to survive on didn't help, delaying additional help didn't help (fuck McConnell as well, that ghoul)...straight ignoring it also didn't help...he is the reason almost (or more) 250,000 people are dead.

He can take credit for the stock market and other shit he literally had nothing to do with so he can take credit for this.

Gosh, I remember when the political valiance of this pandemic was the complete opposite. Remember when we were told lockdowns don't work and Conservatives were being racist and alarmist back at the start of this thing? Gosh how times shift.

[Based1]

Gosh, I remember when the political valiance of this pandemic was the complete opposite. Remember when we were told lockdowns don't work and Conservatives were being racist and alarmist back at the start of this thing? Gosh how times shift.

At that time Trump was portrayed as xenophobic by the fake news media and the very same radical nevertrumper dems who now reeeeeing about 250k being dead literally held "hug a chinese" bullshit to portray Trump as a racist and were telling everyone that everything is fine

[Egomaniac]

Neither did Trump, no president was going to totally stop a virus from spreading. I will say Biden voted for the Iraq War and that DID actually tangible kill people in a far more direct way than before.

Totally stop? No. But Trump did nothing.

[Ivanstone]

You misunderstand what "Counter-Elite" means; Counter-elite doesn't mean "Not-Elite" anymore than an Anti-Pope in Medieval era meant "Not the Pope", it was a rival claimant to the Papacy. Turchin's conception of "Counter Elite" is akin to this idea; he, shut out of power found a way to get into it briefly.

Bannon was a wealthy, powerful man who helped other wealthy, powerful men. There's no other interpretation of his person. He stopped being a wealthy, powerful person because his support for one particular wealthy, powerful person turned out to be a really bad idea.

Neither did Trump, no president was going to totally stop a virus from spreading. I will say Biden voted for the Iraq War and that DID actually tangible kill people in a far more direct way than before.

As for the rest, a lot of Could, Would, Maybe so's. Given the scope of the disaster, the fact that its not a fucking landslide house sweep is fucking stunning.

People vote for their personal priorities. 58 million white Americans felt that supporting racism was more important than handling a pandemic or a functioning economy. It is stunning but not for the reasons you think.

[Theodarzna]

[/QUOTE]

At that time Trump was portrayed as xenophobic by the fake news media and the very same radical nevertrumper dems who now reeeeeing about 250k being dead literally held "hug a chinese" bullshit to portray Trump as a racist and were telling everyone that everything is fine

I remember Conservatives saying that Grandma and Grandpa were just gonna have to sacrifice themselves for economy though. Good times.

Let us also recall that once Liberals embraced the Lockdowns and "Wear the mask you filthy peasant!" discourse, we were told that funerals, family gatherings, religious services or even protests.... against the lockdowns were an unspeakable awful and evil thing. But were then told rioting and mass protests and demonstrations and looting your local target was completely safe.

All this about the pandemic, its been so politicized that it is impossible to say who or what would have been the right move.

[Egomaniac]

Gosh, I remember when the political valiance of this pandemic was the complete opposite. Remember when we were told lockdowns don't work and Conservatives were being racist and alarmist back at the start of this thing? Gosh how times shift.

I remember Conservatives saying that Grandma and Grandpa were just gonna have to sacrifice themselves for economy though. Good times.

[Theodarzna]

Bannon was a wealthy, powerful man who helped other wealthy, powerful men. There's no other interpretation of his person. He stopped being a wealthy, powerful person because his support for one particular wealthy, powerful person turned out to be a really bad idea.

Nothing about that article said he wasn't / is a powerful person. You are misrepresenting what it said and you know it.

[Ivanstone]

Nothing about that article said he wasn't / is a powerful person. You are misrepresenting what it said and you know it.

No, I'm not. Bannon is nothing at all like what the article states. The article is entirely misrepresenting his character for reasons that I find baffling.

[Theodarzna]

No, I'm not. Bannon is nothing at all like what the article states. The article is entirely misrepresenting his character for reasons that I find baffling.

The article described him as an aspirant elite, shut out of power and seeking power, I.E. He was an elite who sought power he felt he should have. What you lot are bleating about is that the accurate description of his origins are mentioned and that doesn't suite you guys well.

[Ivanstone]

The article described him as an aspirant elite, shut out of power and seeking power, I.E. He was an elite who sought power he felt he should have. What you lot are bleating about is that the accurate description of his origins are mentioned and that doesn't suite you guys well.

"Elite overproduction creates counter-elites, and counter-elites look for allies among the commoners."

The problem that you and the author keep missing is that Bannon is column "A". He is part of the elite overproduction. If the author's theory holds the Counter-elite creation is a response to people like Bannon. Trump for that matter is the same.

[Zython]

You misunderstand what "Counter-Elite" means; Counter-elite doesn't mean "Not-Elite" anymore than an Anti-Pope in Medieval era meant "Not the Pope", it was a rival claimant to the Papacy. Turchin's conception of "Counter Elite" is akin to this idea; he, shut out of power found a way to get into it briefly.

You are fixated on this sentence that you can't even be bothered to represent correctly.

No, when the right talks about "elites", they're referring to "cultural elites", i.e. Jews.

But given your flagrant anti-semitism, you already knew that.

[Theodarzna]

"Elite overproduction creates counter-elites, and counter-elites look for allies among the commoners."

The problem that you and the author keep missing is that Bannon is column "A". He is part of the elite overproduction. If the author's theory holds the Counter-elite creation is a response to people like Bannon. Trump for that matter is the same.

The problem you are having is your categorical error about what a "Counter Elite" is. You keep assuming there is some moral ascription to these labels; that is your own hang up and your own refusal to leave your narrative at the door and take the words at their own. You seem insistent on misrepresenting what the author is saying and not really intent to have a discussion.

[Zython]

The problem you are having is your categorical error about what a "Counter Elite" is. You keep assuming there is some moral ascription to these labels; that is your own hang up and your own refusal to leave your narrative at the door and take the words at their own. You seem insistent on misrepresenting what the author is saying and not really intent to have a discussion.

Why should we take him at his word? He said limiting immigration would increase wages and job security. It’s been tried and all that happened is that it was replaced with by convict labor.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Why should we take him at his word? He said limiting immigration would increase wages and job security. It’s been tried and all that happened is that it was replaced with by convict labor.

He isn't actually saying such things :

Turchin’s prescriptions are, as a whole, vague and unclassifiable. Some sound like ideas that might have come from Senator Elizabeth Warren—tax the elites until there are fewer of them—while others, such as a call to reduce immigration to keep wages high for American workers, resemble Trumpian protectionism. Other policies are simply heretical. He opposes credential-*oriented higher education, for example, which he says is a way of mass-producing elites without also mass-*producing elite jobs for them to occupy. Architects of such policies, he told me, are “creating surplus elites, and some become counter-elites.” A smarter approach would be to keep the elite numbers small, and the real wages of the general population on a constant rise.

How to do that? Turchin says he doesn’t really know, and it isn’t his job to know. “I don’t really think in terms of specific policy,” he told me. “We need to stop the runaway process of elite overproduction, but I don’t know what will work to do that, and nobody else does. Do you increase taxation? Raise the minimum wage? Universal basic income?” He conceded that each of these possibilities would have unpredictable effects. He recalled a story he’d heard back when he was still an ecologist: The Forest Service had once implemented a plan to reduce the population of bark beetles with pesticide—only to find that the pesticide killed off the beetles’ predators even more effectively than it killed the beetles. The intervention resulted in more beetles than before. The lesson, he said, was to practice “adaptive management,” changing and modulating your approach as you go.

[Draco-Onis]

You are conjecturing what the article said and misrepresenting it. Probably because I posted it and the idea of just reading anything I've posted and representing it fairly or even attempting to is anethma to you. Bannon was ascribed a childhood, not a description of what he is now, or was at the time of the election.

That is a big line of dribble, have you been robbed of your ability to read?

Donald Trump, for example, may appear elite (rich father, Wharton degree, gilded commodes), but Trumpism is a counter-elite movement

This is the premise, do you agree that Trumpism is a counter elite movement? you know the administration that cut corporate regulations and taxes to maximize their profits at the cost of human lives.

[szechuan]

You misunderstand what "Counter-Elite" means; Counter-elite doesn't mean "Not-Elite"

LMAO Trump is not counter-elite, he's Anti-Intelligence, Science, and Democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Let us also recall that once Liberals embraced the Lockdowns and "Wear the mask you filthy peasant!" discourse, we were told that funerals, family gatherings, religious services or even protests.... against the lockdowns were an unspeakable awful and evil thing. But were then told rioting and mass protests and demonstrations and looting your local target was completely safe.

Yet more strawmen and out of context bs, nobody said it was completely safe, and Protesting against lockdowns is stupid.

All this about the pandemic, its been so politicized that it is impossible to say who or what would have been the right move.

It definitely is not impossible.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet again, you're completely ignoring Context.

[Howel]

This is the premise, do you agree that Trumpism is a counter elite movement? you know the administration that cut corporate regulations and taxes to maximize their profits at the cost of human lives.

That is what it turned out to do in action. Trump did run on a semi counter-elite movement. Calling out coastal elites, calling out the press etc.. He did have slights of populism sprinkled in with his campaign; that it turned out to be completely opposite of what he ended up doing instead; speaks more about what the real danger of counter elitism is: it is a way for, almost elite people, to become elite; but they have zero actual populist motives, they're just another form of elites who gets suckered in by an existing elite that strokes their ego for favours (which I think speaks tons of this current administration, Trumps ego, not the nation's interest is what gets stuff done).

With that said, and I'll @Theodarzna as well on this one. I am still not entirely sure, why exactly it is the more moderate one that gets the blame for creating such monsters. Like, I get that not solving the issue, leaves people to become disenfranchised and seek new avenues; but it is still bad people who elect to run on false promises.

[Ivanstone]

The problem you are having is your categorical error about what a "Counter Elite" is. You keep assuming there is some moral ascription to these labels; that is your own hang up and your own refusal to leave your narrative at the door and take the words at their own. You seem insistent on misrepresenting what the author is saying and not really intent to have a discussion.

No, I'm using the author's own words to defeat his point. He said that Counter-Elites will rise and then provides the worst possible example of what a counter-elite is.

[Felya]

No, I'm using the author's own words to defeat his point. He said that Counter-Elites will rise and then provides the worst possible example of what a counter-elite is.

Because it’s not... I’ve literally been pointing at the Oligarch vs New Russian for 4 years... it’s a blatantly obvious conflict. The IT boom creates new elite in the last 20 years, that are challenging the elite status of energy and real estate tycoons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Russians